VÄNNEN FORN
JOURNAL OF SWEDISH ANTIQUARIAN RESEARCH
2020/1
Utgiven av
Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien i samarbete med Historiska museet.
Fornvännen finns på webben i sin helhet från första årgången och publiceras löpande där med ett halvårs fördröjning: fornvannen.se
Ansvarig utgivare och huvudredaktör Mats Roslund
Vitterhetsakademien Box 5622, 114 86 Stockholm mats.roslund@ark.lu.se
Redaktionssekreterare och mottagare av manuskript Peter Carelli
Vitterhetsakademien Box 5622, 114 86 Stockholm fornvannen@vitterhetsakademien.se Redaktörer
Herman Bengtsson, herman.bengtsson@upplandsmuseet.se Christina Fredengren, christina.fredengren@shm.se Åsa M Larsson, asa.larsson@raa.se
Teknisk redaktör Kerstin Öström Grävlingsvägen 50 167 56 Bromma kerstin@vinghasten.se Prenumeration Vitterhetsakademien Box 5622, 114 86 Stockholm
e-post fornvannen@vitterhetsakademien.se Bankgiro 535-3552
Årsprenumeration i Sverige (4 häften) 200 kronor, lösnummer 60 kronor Journal of Swedish Antiquarian Research
published by The Royal Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities Subscription price outside Sweden (four issues) SEK 250:–
Box 5622, SE-114 86 Stockholm, Sweden
fornvännen började utges av Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien år 1906 och ersatte då Akademiens Månadsblad samt Svenska Fornminnesföreningens Tidskrift, som båda tillkommit under 1870-talets första år. Förutom i Sverige finns Fornvännen på drygt 350 bibliotek och vetenskapliga institutioner i mer än 40 länder.
Tidskriften är referentgranskad.
fornvännen (»The Antiquarian») has been published by the Royal Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities since 1906, when it replaced two older journals which had started in the early years of the 1870s.
Outside Sweden Fornvännen is held by more than 350 libraries and scientific institutions in over 40 countries.
The journal is peer-reviewed.
issn 0015-7813
Printed in Sweden by AMO-tryck AB, Solna, 2020
Författarinstruktioner
fornvännen välkomnar manuskript i nordisk arkeologi och äldre tiders konstvetenskap med angränsande ämnen. Bidrag skrivs på ett av de skandinaviska språken (svenska, norska, danska) eller på engelska.
Fornvännen utkommer med fyra tryckta nummer per år och innehållet tillgängliggörs Open Access med ett halvårs fördröjning.
fornvännen tar emot fyra typer av bidrag:
1) Artiklar: Fördjupade presentationer av nya forskningsresultat som offentliggörs för första gången. Max 45 000 nedslag inkl. blanksteg (exkl. abstract och referenser). Kompletteras med abstract, referenser, summary och 4–5 keywords på engelska.
2) Korta meddelanden: Korta presentationer av fynd/resultat som bedöms ha forskningsmässigt nyhetsvärde.
Max 13 500 nedslag inkl. blanksteg (exkl. ev. referenser). Får ha ett begränsat antal referenser och illustra- tioner. Ska ej ha abstract eller summary.
3) Debattinlägg: Kortare diskuterande och argumenterande texter. Max 20 000 nedslag inkl. blanksteg. Får ha ett begränsat antal referenser och illustrationer. Ska ej ha abstract eller summary.
4) Recensioner: Granskning av både skandinaviska och internationella publikationer som bedöms vara av intresse för tidskriftens ämnesområden. Max 9 000 nedslag inkl. blanksteg. Inga illustrationer eller refereser.
Alla bidrag granskas av Fornvännens redaktion samt en extern sakkunnig genom s.k. dubbel blind peer review.
Utförliga författarinstruktioner för innehåll, format, referenssystem osv. finns att ladda ned på:
http://vitterhetsakad.se/publikationer/fornvannen. Bidrag tas emot löpande och ska skickas i färdigt skick, redigerade enligt de utförliga författarinstruktionerna, och med illustrationer till:
fornvannen@vitterhetsakademien.se.
Guide for Authors
fornvännen: Journal of Swedish Antiquarian Research accepts manuscripts in English on Nordic archaeology and early art history, as well as topics closely related to these disciplines. The journal is published in four printed issues annually, and the contents are made Open Access six months after publication.
Four types of contributions can be submitted:
1) Articles: Max. 45,000 characters incl. spaces (excl. abstract and references). Abstract, summary and 4–5 keywords in English.
2) Short Communications: Brief presentation of artefacts/results judged to be newsworthy for researchers. Max.
13,500 characters incl. spaces (excl. references). A limited number of illustrations and references allowed, but no abstract.
3) Debates: Max. 20,000 characters incl. spaces (excl. references). A limited number of illustrations and references allowed, but no abstract.
4) Reviews: Scandinavian and international publications judged to be of interest to the readership of the journal. Max. 9,000 characters incl. spaces. No illustrations or references.
All submissions undergo editorial auditing and revision. Article manuscripts are subjected to double-blind peer review by external researchers.
Detailed instructions for authors covering content, format, reference system etc. can be downloaded at:
http://vitterhetsakad.se/publikationer/fornvannen. Manuscripts, completed according to the full instructions and including illustrations, may be submitted at any time to:
fornvannen@vitterhetsakademien.se.
1 Isberg, A. Ringspännen i Lund. Skiftande traditioner mellan Östersjön och Konti- nenten. —Summary.
15 Ødeby, K. Hvor er runene? —Summary.
29 Lingström, M. & Klackenberg, H. Sigill- stampen från Biskops-Arnö. —Summary.
debatt
37 Hegardt, J. Kanske: Det humanistiska tvivlet och det arkeologiska narrativet.
40 Björklund, A. et al. Referensverket Det medeltida Sverige och arkeologin.
43 Indrelid, S. Medieval communal reindeer drives on Hardangervidda, South Nor- way: reply to Otto Blehr.
korta meddelanden
51 Oehrl, S. Gotland’s largest picture stone rediscovered.
55 Gustafsson, N.B. Ett nyfunnet märke från Roma kloster.
58 Larsson, A. et al. Korsvikskäken: Ett bohuslänskt skelettfynd från mellersta järnålder.
recensioner
61 Ling, M. & Welinder, S. Arkeologiska fan- tasier. Anmälan av J. Wienberg.
63 Dørum, K. & Holberg, E. Frå høvdingdøme til statsmakt i Noreg ca. 200–1350. An- mälan av T. Lindkvist.
65 Skoglund, P. et al. (red.). North Meets South:
Theoretical Aspects on the Northern and Southern Rock Art Traditions in Scan- dinavia. Anmälan av V. Mantere.
67 Zachrisson, I. Gränsland: Mitt arkeologiska liv. Anmälan av I. Berg.
69 Buchwald, V.F. Jernets Danmarkshistorie.
Anmälan av A. Ödman.
Innehåll
issn 0015-7813
Debatt 43
Medieval communal reindeer drives on Hardangervidda, South Norway: reply to Otto Blehr
In his two debating articles in Fornvännen (2012 and 2019), Otto Blehr discusses, and strongly cri- ticizes, my work on medieval reindeer hunting on the Hardangervidda. As his allegations are essen- tially the same in both contributions, I choose to respond to both simultaneously, and to discuss his main arguments here.
In cooperation with colleagues from within and outside the field of archaeology, I have re- searched the large scale, but seemingly brief mass hunting of reindeer in the northern part of the mountain plateau Hardangervidda in Norway in medieval times (Indrelid 2010; 2013; 2014; 2015;
Indrelid & Hufthammer 2011, Indrelid et al.
2007; 2015). The background for this is partly provided by a local legend concerning a hunting technique making use of leading fences and float- ing lines on water guiding animals into lakes to be killed, and partly by material from archaeo- logical excavations of nearby stone hut ruins and bone middens.
Sumtangen, a strip of land on the southern shore of Lake Finnsbergvatn (1190 m a.s.l.), is one of the most important locations for the leg- end as well as for cultural remains connected to the legends. Two stone hut ruins, named Austbu and Vestbu, lie near the narrow sound where the hunt is said to have taken place. They are sur- rounded by large bone middens, consisting al- most entirely of reindeer bones and antler frag- ments.
As a part of an interdisciplinary project led by the osteologist, professor Anne Karin Huftham- mer and me, small parts of the waste middens at Sumtangen were excavated in the years 2004–
2005, and a further two comparable archaeologi- cal sites ca. 15 km further south on the shore of Lake Store Krækkja in 2006–2008. In 2006, assisted by marine archaeologists, we collected bone material from a fourth, now inundated, hunting station in Lake Ørteren, 4 km northeast of Store Krækkja.
In addition to having discovered leading fen- ces and trapping pits in the landscape, Otto Blehr
excavated at Sumtangen and Store Krækkja in the first half of the 1970’s. Before this, starting as early as 1840, several other researchers excavated house foundations and middens (Indrelid 2014).
Professor Hufthammer and Dr. Liselotte Tak- ken-Beijersbergen analysed the faunal material from the excavations 2004–2008 osteologically and statistically. DNA-analyses were done by the geneticist, professor Knut Røed, and the archae- ologist Dr. Jostein Bergstøl has registered cairns and postholes that may have been connected to the hunt.
Blehr’s criticism concentrates mainly on the following issues:
a) The traditional legend and my use of it.
b) The remains of cairns and other leading contraptions in the terrain.
c) When did the communal drives at Sum- tangen take place, and how long did they last?
d) How extensive was the hunt?
e) Who organised the communal reindeer drives?
a) The legends
The legends describing reindeer hunting connec- ted to four lakes on the Hardangervidda mountain plateau, Finnsbergvatn, Store Krækkja, Ørteren and Nordmannslågen, are fragmentary and partly self-contradictory. However, they contain some common elements such as catching reindeer flocks in water, rows of cairns that lead the animals towards the lakes, and the use of ropes attached to the cairns or stretched over water. All four hunting stations feature large stone hut ruins surrounded by middens consisting of reindeer bones. As far as I know, there are no other mid- dens of comparable size in the northern or cen- tral part of the Hardangervidda.
The manuscript collection of the University library in Bergen contains several notes by the regional official, stiftamtmann W.F.K. Christie, concerning cultural heritage sites connected to the reindeer hunt on Hardangervidda (Christie
Fornvännen 115 (2020)
44 Debatt
ms. 222 nr. XIII, XIV and XV). These state that he learned of house foundations and bone middens on Hardangervidda in 1838. The collection further contains report of a journey undertaken in 1840 by W. Koren, who, on Christie’s request, visited and examined these and other sites on Hardangervidda.
Koren’s report was reprinted and transcribed in extenso by Øivind Bakke (Bakke 1985).
Koren’s report describes the hunting drives on Hardangervidda for the first time, although not from Lake Finnsbergvatn, but from Nord- mannslågen, a lake situated ca. 30 km further south. He states that reindeer were caught using ropes stretched over the water, whilst they were trying to swim across the lake from the opposite shore. In a letter to Christie, dated 20 November 1840, he explains that this legend also concerns the bone middens in what he refers to as Findse- dalen (at Finnsbergvatn). In a note (Ms. 222 nr.
XIII), probably written in the autumn of the same year, Christie mentions the same fragment of the legend and adds: “Der siges at dyrene ere fangede paa vandet med liner af beboerne” (It is said that the animals are caught with ropes in the water by the inhabitants, my translation). This concerns the house foundations and bone mid- dens at Sumtangen. Thus, it is not correct when Blehr in his summary of the 2019 article claims that Christie did not mention any legend con- cerning Sumtangen.
The antiquarian Nicolay Nicolaysen, who visited Sumtangen in 1860 (Nicolaysen 1861), was told that ropes were stretched between two promontories in Lake Finnsbergvatn (the south- ern of these being Sumtangen), trapping swim- ming animals in this way.
In 1884 Th. S. Haukenes published a more comprehensive legend linking the drives to trap- ping pits near Gravskar, 2.5 km west of Sumtan- gen. Rows of cairns, connected by ropes with ratt- ling bells on them, would lead the reindeer to- wards the trapping pits and the lake. Some were caught in the pits; others trying to escape through the lake were killed by hunters in boats. This obviously is a combination of fragments of two legends, one from Gravskar and another from Sumtangen (Bakke 1985, p. 100).
In 1890 and 1891 Bendixen, a school director, visited Hardangervidda on a mission from Ber-
gen’s Museum. His account of the legend about Sumtangen is consistent with Nicolaysen’s ver- sion (Bendixen 1892, p. 27).
There are two hunting stations with remains of stone huts and middens on the southern shore of Lake Store Krækkja (Nordre Boplass and Sønd- re Boplass), whilst the remains of two large stone hut ruins and a bone midden are situated at Lake Ørteren. The latter was dammed and inundated in the 1960’s. These three stations are connected to a legend concerning a complex of hunting structures near the narrow isthmus Svoi, which divides Store Krækkja from Ørteren. Bendixen was told the legend while visiting Krækkja in 1890. Ropes were supposedly set up at Svoi, reach- ing into the lake where they formed a curve. “Når rensdyrene så ikke kunne komme frem over eidet og satte på svøm, stødte de overalt paa linerne og blev overfaldne med spyd og pile” (When the reindeer could not cross the isthmus and took to the water, they would meet the ropes everywhere and were ambushed by spears and arrows, my translation) (Bendixen 1892, p. 35).
Around twenty years later, Yngvar Nielsen, a professor in geography, refers to the same legend, adding that old cairns can be found at Svoi, to which, according to the legend, ropes were fas- tened that continued into Lake Krækkja by which the reindeer would get trapped and were killed (Nielsen 1909, p. 593).
Fragments of legends that survived the 600 to 700 years since the hunt took place should hardly be taken literally. After being retold by 15 to 20 generations, not much can be left of the eye- witness accounts describing the original events.
Therefore, I am not as concerned by the details in the individual fragments as Blehr seems to be. I see a connection between the hunts at all four stations that, according to their 14C-dates, were in simultaneous use. The individual elements in the fragmentary legends can at best provide some suggestions of how the hunt may have happened.
b) The remains of cairns and other leading contraptions in the terrain
In the 1970’s, Blehr described six cairns on the north side of Finnsbergvatn, claiming these had nothing to do with Sumtangen, because they lie further to the west where the lake is widest. He
Fornvännen 115 (2020)
Debatt 45 may be right there, but he is mistaken when he
thinks that these cairns are included in the rows of cairns and post holes I mentioned in 2010 (p.
32), and by which he expresses his dissatisfaction in his 2019 article. Dr. Bergstøl, a participant in our project, proved the existence of several rows of cairns and postholes north of Lake Finnsberg- vatn, opposite Sumtangen, in 2008–2010 (Berg- støl 2000, fig. 3, p. 102): “At the top of the east- ern row, there are several post holes that show that it [the row] must have been reinforced at this spot. The western row follows the ridge that ends just above Sumtangen. The eastern row prevents the animals from moving to the eastern side of Lake Finnsbergvatn. It is difficult to determine whether the animals entered the lake voluntarily or whether they were driven into it.” (Bergstøl 2000, pp. 106–107, my translation). In an e-mail to me, dated 15.11.2019, Dr. Bergstøl describes these more accurately as being small cairns and several dozens of postholes. These contraptions can hardly have had another purpose than to lead animals towards the shore, barely 200 m from Sumtangen on the opposite side of the lake.
Blehr seems to accept that some form or other of “communal reindeer drive” occurred at Sum- tangen. Somehow, he has conceived the idea that the hunt targeted bulls exclusively. In his 2012 article, he accounts for an analysis of antler re- mains he recovered from the Sumtangen midden in 1972. He cites the zoologist Odd Kjos-Hans- sen who states that “Both sexes and all age groups were represented in the material, but with a slight overweight for bull antlers” (Kjos-Hans- sen 1973, p. 77–78), but is like Kjos-Hanssen sur- prised by this result: “Since such a male domi- nance is hardly likely in an area used by fostering flocks, where there would have been an excess of females and calves, this indicates that the area was mainly visited by bulls.” He concludes: “Thus, in most cases it would have been bulls migrating south in the fall that were driven into the water.”
(Blehr 2012, p. 119).
Referring to his own observations of reindeer over a period of four years in the Sumtangen area, he informs that the largest flock he ever encountered were roughly twenty bulls. These data are of importance, he says, “since they indi- cate that most of the flocks migrating south at
the onset of the rutting season have consisted of only a few animals” (Blehr 2012, p. 119). Accord- ing to Dr. Terje Skogland, one of the most distin- guished biologists in international reindeer sci- ence, about 500 bulls and a herd of several hun- dreds of cows were counted within Hardanger- vidda North (including the Finnsbergvatn area) in 1985. He does not give the impression that finding bull herds and fostering flocks in this area is unusual. This is in accordance with the con- tents of the bone middens at Sumtangen that indicate that bulls, cows, and calves were target- ed in the hunts. It does not necessarily mean that these were part of the same group. I believe that, during late summer and autumn, the hunters stayed at Sumtangen so long as there was any chance of capturing flocks of profitable size.
Sometimes these would consist of bulls; some- times these would be fostering flocks.
At Sumtangen, there is also a midden from the Older Iron Age, ca. AD 200–400. According to professor Knut Røed, the geneticist who per- formed DNA-analyses on the bones from the Older Iron Age, medieval period, and the pres- ent-day Hardangervidda reindeer population, the genetic variation was stable until the Middle Ages, but “there has been a substantial change from the Middle Ages until the present” (Indre- lid et al. 2007, pp 151–152). “The Hardangervidda reindeer population has gone through rather dra- matic genetic deteriorations, especially during the last two centuries, when reindeer husbandry was practised in this mountain region” (Røed et al. 2011). Furthermore, it is known that reindeer migration routes are highly influenced by human infrastructure and disturbance. On Hardanger- vidda, reindeer migration patterns are known to have changed a.o. after the establishment of the railroad between Oslo and Bergen (Skogland &
Jordhøy 1988). Therefore, drawing definite con- clusions on reindeer migration routes in medie- val times based on observations of presentsday reindeer can only be speculation.
c) When did the communal drives at Sumtangen take place, and how long did they last?
In our 2011 paper we presented the 15 radiocar- bon dates of bone for the medieval middens at Sumtangen we so far had received (specified in
Fornvännen 115 (2020)
46 Debatt
Blehr 2012, fig. 1). The mean date interval at a 68 per cent confidence level showed the period AD 1240–1290 (Indrelid & Hufthammer 2011, p.
48). Since then, three new bone samples from the stratigraphically oldest bone layers have been dated (Takken-Beijersbergen 2017, p. 343 and tab. 2).
Based on the median probability values, 12 of the 18 radiocarbon dates lie between AD 1215 and AD 1300, with an average of AD 1257. Five lie between AD 1096 and AD 1193, with an aver- age of AD 1155, and one AD 1348. The dates indi- cate a main hunting period restricted to the 13th century, but with a preceding phase in the early or middle part of the 12th century. It is unclear whether these older dates are related to the mass hunt. Six dates from three smaller middens at Lake Krækkja, not connected with stone hut remains, have been dated to the period AD 1096–
1185. These sites contain the remains of but a few bulls and are most probably unrelated to the mass hunts.
Based on three radiocarbon dates from his own excavation in 1973, Blehr concluded that
“the hunt had been carried out regularly through the Early Middle Ages only to end abruptly with the Black Death 1349–50” (Blehr 2012, p. 116).
On the following page, he presents the 15 radio- carbon dates from our excavations, and admits that “Judging from them, it is likely that the com- munal drives at Sumtangen ended already in the early 14th century, that is, before the Black Death hit the area.” Despite this, Blehr chooses to trust his own three dates from 1973 more (740±80, 600±100 and 700±100 BP) and say that these,
“when calibrated, are consistent with an end date of about 1350, though with so few dates and such low precision it could have been a century later too” (Blehr 2012, p. 121). Blehr’s opinions on the excellence of his own ideas are at times astound- ing.
d) How extensive was the hunt?
In his 2019 article Blehr criticizes our use of the terms “herds”, describing the reindeer groups that were caught at Lake Finnsbergvatn, and “mass killing”, describing the hunting method (Indre- lid & Hufthammer 2011). He allows his ponder- ing on these words to become an argument to
reject the idea that large numbers of reindeer were caught at Sumtangen. He claims that “herd” is a concept used to describe “a larger unit within a population, sometimes for post-calving aggrega- tions of 1000–5000 animals” and refers to Parker (1972). Parker’s article concerns barren-ground caribou in north-central Canada. I have no know- ledge of Canadian caribou group size, but both Blehr and I know that reindeer flocks on Hardan- gervidda in our times can vary between a few dozen or fewer individuals to several hundreds, occasionally even more than 1000 animals.
Because the estimates professor Huft-hammer and I provide for the average yearly catch are con- siderably lower than 1000–5000, Blehr con- cludes audaciously: “Thus, it goes without saying that no «mass killing of entire herds» can ever have taken place at Sumtangen.” (Blehr 2019, p.
243).
We have no objections to replace “herds” by
“flocks” or other terms that Blehr would find more appropriate. Our point is that large groups of animals were driven into the water, dragged onshore and butchered by the huntsmen. The remains of these, by our tentative estimations, 5500–7800 animals, are left behind in the bone midden at Sumtangen. In my opinion, this justi- fies using the term “mass killing”. Concerning the extent of the hunt, Blehr refers to Dr. Takken- Beijersbergen who according to him reaches completely different conclusions. Different sta- tistical methods may be used to estimate the number of individuals. We used MNI (minimum number of individuals) (White 1953) and MLNI (most likely number of individuals) as described by Adams & Koningsberg (2004).
Our material was based on the bone material from one square meter, 0.5 m3of sediment and bones excavated from the midden on the south side of the Austbu ruin, in total 22.749 bones and bone fragments (Indrelid & Hufthammer 2011, tab. 2). The whole midden outside Austbu and Vestbu is estimated to 50 m3(Indrelid et al. 2007, p. 137).
The MNI method, based on 55 right carpale 4+5, gave the result of 5500 individuals. The MLNI estimate derived from the calcaneum gave 5800, from the astragalus 7800, and the centro- tarsale 7700 individuals. Dr. Takken-Beijersber-
Fornvännen 115 (2020)
Debatt 47 gen reaches a lower estimate. She concludes that
the middens contain the remains of a minimum of 2851 animals based on an MNI of 77. This is considerably less than the MNI of 5500 and indi- cates that the bones were not distributed evenly in the middens. However, one has to assume that more animals than calculated were represented at the site, because of the very nature of the MNI, and the likely size reduction of the middens due to taphonomic processes, including later human disturbances and the earlier excavations. Both the archaeological evidence and the demographic composition of the taphocoenoses strongly indi- cate a hunting strategy that was aimed at killing as many animals as possible (Takken-Beijersber- gen 2017, p. 353).
Blehr makes a point of the fact that Dr. Takken- Beijersbergen’s results show lower numbers than ours and takes this as an evidence that no mass hunt can ever have taken place (2019 p. 243). It should be self-evident that no statistical method ever can give exact numbers of the real catch. Our objective was to find out whether the total catch was large – several thousand, or less extensive.
The results demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that we are not talking of a few hundred individuals but several thousands.
In his comments (2019, pp. 242–243), he ob- viously regards our average numbers as absolute.
As an example, we calculated the annual catch over a 50 years period to be 110 individuals using 5500 animals as a total number (Indrelid &
Hufthammer 2011). This is of course a hypothet- ical example. Some years the number would be considerably higher, some years lower. When the catch for several years was lower than what was profitable, the communal hunt would be aban- doned, which according to our dates happened several decades before the Black Death 1349–
1350.
e) Who organised the communal reindeer drives?
In his 2019 contribution, Blehr states that “There is no evidence that townspeople and not the hunters themselves organized the communal dri- ves in medieval times.” (Blehr 2019:245). In this case, Blehr and I have interpreted the data differ- ently. I cannot see that he expresses a clear theory of who organised the communal hunt, except
that it was not by townspeople. In his 2012 article however, he presents a “tentative hypothesis”, saying that he can see a connection between the communal reindeer drives at Sumtangen and the iron production in Sysendalen, especially at the farm Fet: “The production of iron, and the char- coal this process demanded, would have emp- loyed many people, and thus made the meat from reindeer killed at Sumtangen a necessary supple- ment to the food produced at Fet.” (Blehr 2012, p. 120). An observation made by Nicolaysen (1861, p. 18), that some of the charcoal kilns were not emptied, made him propose that something had happened to their owners, and suggests that it had to do with the Black Death. Blehr finds this to be “a reasonable assumption” and goes on speculating: “If the plague killed the men burn- ing charcoal, it would also have killed enough of those engaged in iron production as well as those hunting at Sumtangen.” Referring to his own three radiocarbon dates from 1973, he concludes:
“Thus, it seems certain that the communal rein- deer drives at Sumtangen did come to an abrupt end when the plague hit the area in 1349” (Blehr 2012, p. 121).
In my opinion, there are three facts that indi- cate that the hunt was organised by others than local huntsmen: 1) Laws, and finds from the mid- dens; 2) Runic inscriptions and rare artifacts; 3) The way the animals were butchered.
I have, in several publications, discussed legal texts concerning the ownership of swimming animals that are killed (Indrelid 2010; 2014;
2015). Both the Gulating Law Codex, one of the four regional laws in Norway in the Early Middle Ages, and the first national law (Landsloven 1274) contain rules about this. The Gulating Law re- gion covered a large part of South Norway, in- cluding the districts of Hardanger to the west, and Hallingdal to the east of Hardangervidda.
Part V, article 24, describes a particular situation when a swimming animal is killed. If the one who kills the animal is someone else than the person who “owns” it, the upper foreleg (bóg) belongs to the one who killed it. In the law text, this is referred to as skot-bóg.
As mentioned below, precisely upper forelegs are heavily underrepresented at Sumtangen. I consider it likely that the upper foreleg was the
Fornvännen 115 (2020)
48 Debatt
hunters’ payment, whilst the rest of the carcass fell to the “owners”. The “owner” of the animal in this case should be interpreted as the one who organised the hunt or was considered the owner of the game in the area. The king considered him- self the owner of all the land that fell outside the area of the established farms, but the local people had some hunting and fishing rights in such areas. Reindeer hunting to such an extent would hardly have been accepted by the king. There- fore, I consider it highly unlikely that local hun- ters organised the communal reindeer hunts on Hardangervidda in medieval times.
I have posed this question to Dr. Jørn Øyre- hagen Sunde, professor in legal history and spe- cialised in medieval sources. He agrees with my arguments. On the Landsloven that succeeded the Gulating Law, he says a.o.: “Combining all the rules in the Landsloven from 1274, there can be no doubt that the king prevailed over all acti- vity in commons (“allmenninger”) that exceed- ed established use.” The extensive, but relatively brief communal reindeer hunt he interprets as “an example of use of such a character and where the timing of its origin that the king must approve it.
The person to grant permission for such a hunt would have been the “sysselmann”, the king's highest regional official” (my translation) (Øyre- hagen Sunde, e-mail to me 24.11.2019).
In his 2019 contribution, Blehr mentions four reindeer bones with runic inscriptions found in the middens at Sumtangen. I consider it more likely that these runes were carved by other people than the reindeer hunters in Hallingdal and Har- danger. Blehr refers to the Samnordisk runtext- databas and states it as a fact that “medieval runes were in common use at least to ca. 1400 for sim- ple messages inscribed on wood and bone”. That runes were used regularly in certain circles in the towns, is commonly accepted. Carvings from a.o.
churches in the countryside prove that even some villagers must have been familiar with the runic alphabet. However, we know little about how common this knowledge was.
Professor Henrik Williams at the Department of Scandinavian Languages of Uppsala University kindly sent me an overview over all medieval runic inscriptions from Norwegian rural con- texts in the Samnordisk runtextdatabas. Fifteen
inscriptions are known from Hallingdal, 11 of those are from Torpo church and four from the church in Ål. There are five inscriptions from Hardanger: one from Odda, one from Kvam and three from Ullensvang. Based on this, it is douptful that literacy was widely spread amongst the rural population in Hallingdal and Hardanger in the Middle Ages.
There is, however, more than just the runic inscriptions alone that make me doubt that it were local reindeer hunters that organised the communal hunt on Hardangervidda. Some oth- er finds also seem strange amongst reindeer hun- ters in the field. A chess piece was found in one of the middens at Sumtangen, two dices for game at Krækkja North, and at Krækkja South a frag- ment of a long bone featuring small, carved circ- les identical to those that were used to decorate medieval combs. This is an ordinary bone frag- ment on which somebody played around with a pair of compasses. In my view, these artifacts do not fit in with the equipment of a reindeer hun- ter, but they may well have belonged to merchants or craftsmen present during the hunt to attend to their business- and crafting interests.
Blehr omits mentioning one of the most im- portant arguments I have put forward against a locally organised hunt: the way the animals were butchered. All skeletal elements are present in the 13th century middens at Sumtangen, except the main part of the antlers, ribs and upper fore- leg bones. Marrow-containing bones are heavily fragmented. The meat was cut from the bones during the butchering process, and almost all bones were left as waste at the site. This is com- pletely different from the butchering pattern known from the local communities around Har- dangervidda in historical time, where the head and distal parts of the feet were chopped off, whilst the remainder of the carcass would be transported in one piece or divided into shoul- ders, legs, loin and ribs. Why did those who under- took the mass-hunts at Sumtangen and Store Krækkja treat the carcasses differently?
Bearing in mind the large amounts of meat to be carried away after a successful mass-hunt, it was necessary, even with horse transportation, to keep the weight at a minimum. If the destination for the products was far away, it would have been
Fornvännen 115 (2020)
Debatt 49 worth the bother of cutting off the meat and leav-
ing most of the bones behind, that only present- ed unnecessary weight and ballast. All marrow- containing bones were shattered, either to con- sume the nutritious marrow on site or to trans- port it with the meat. If the destination was close-by, like e.g. to Fet in Sysendalen, like Blehr suggested, it seems absurd that the hunters would debone the animals first, harvest the marrow and then undertake the 25 km long trip home to Fet.
The antlers were taken away from site as well.
The middens contain almost exclusively smaller tines and skulls where the antlers have been re- moved. Reindeer antlers were an important com- modity in medieval times. They were used for a.o. the production of hair combs and other per- sonal accessories. Combs made of reindeer antler are found in medieval archaeological contexts spanning from Northern Norway to Schleswig and from Lund to Orkney and the Faroe islands (Røed & Hansen 2015, pp. 69–70). The remains of a comb maker's workshop were found in the medieval layers at Bryggen in Bergen, featuring debris of reindeer antler off cuts (Herteig 1969, p. 186).
The way the animals were butchered is the most convincing argument for that not local huntsmen were responsible for hunt, and that the resulting products were not intended for the local villages, but more likely for the towns, in this case most likely Bergen.
*
Otto Blehr and I have known each other for 50 years, from the early 1970’s when we both were researchers in the Hardangerviddaprosjektet for Tverrvitenskapelig Kulturforskning (HTK), he as an ethnologist, I as an archaeologist. We were often of different opinions and disagreed on scientific questions, the way it should be amongst dedicated researchers. However, in his last two debating articles in Fornvännen 2012 and 2019, his scien- tific arguments are at times overshadowed by an attitude that has little to do with serious research.
As shown above, many of his verbal assaults against me are based on false claims, weak argu- ments, and he finds my articles “far too rich in unsubstantiated statements” (Blehr 2019, p. 245).
I find it lamentable and sad that Blehr lets his sci- entific legacy be oveshadowed by this type of one-sided negative narrative of the works of a former colleague and friend. I agree wholeheart- edly with him that “As researchers we have a responsibility to present a picture as solidly under- pinned as possible, based on our limited data”
(Blehr 2019, p. 245) and leave it to the reader to judge who provides “unsubstantiated statements”.
This discussion is closed as far as I am con- cerned.
Acknowledgement
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr.
Liselotte Takken-Beijersbergen for significant assistance during my work with this debate con- tribution.
References
Adams, B. J. & Koningsberg, L. W., 2004. Estimation of the most likely Number of Individuals from commingled Human Skeleton Remains. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 125:138–151.
Bakke, Ø., 1985. W. F. Korens innberetning fra Har- dangervidda i 1840: Med innledning og kom- mentarer av Øivind Bakke. Hardanger, 1985:54–
116.
Bendixen, B. E., 1892. Fornlevninger i Hardanger.
Foreningen til Norske Fortidsmindesmerkers Bevaring:
Aarsberetning for 1891. Kristiania.
Bergstøl, J., 2000. Fangst av villrein på Hardangervidda.
Punsvik, T. & Frøstrup, J. C. (red.). Fjellets nomade:
Villreinen: Biologi – Historie – Forvaltning. Arendal.
Blehr, O., 2012. Medieval Reindeer Drives at Sumtan- gen, Hardangervidda: Two Interpretations. Forn- vännen 107:115–122.
— 2019. Sumtangen, a medieval communal reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) drive locality on the mountain plateau Hardangervidda in Norway, once more.
Fornvännen 114:242–246.
Christie, W. F. K., Benhougene i Eyfjord, Ubb-ms-0222- XIII [Manuscript in The University of Bergen Library].
— Fund af Been i Simedal, Eyfjord Præstegjeld i Hardan- ger, Ubb-ms-0222-XIV [Manuscript in The Uni- versity of Bergen Library].
— Beenhoug i Eyfjord, Ubb-ms-0222-XV [Manuscript in The University of Bergen Library].
Haukenæs, Th. S., 1884. Natur, Folkeliv og Folketro i Har- danger, belyst ved Natur og Folkelivsskoldringer, Even- tyr, Sagn, Fortællinger o.s.v. fra ældre og nyere Tid:
Første del, Eidfjord. Hardanger. Nytt opptrykk 2013.
Herteig, A., 1969. Kongers havn og handels sete: Fra de Fornvännen 115 (2020)
50 Debatt
arkeologiske undersøkelsene på Bryggen i Bergen 1955–
68. Oslo.
Hufthammer, A. K., Bratbak, O. F. & Indrelid, S., 2011. A study of bone remains and butchering pat- terns from mdieval mass-hunting of reindeer in the South Norwegian mountain districts. Quater- nary International, vol. 238:55–62.
Indrelid, S., 2010. Om reinsdyrfangsten på Sumtangen i gamal tid. Villreinen 2010:28–34.
Indrelid, S., 2013. «Industrial» reindeer hunting in the south Norwegian mountains in the Viking Age and Early Middle Ages. Grimm, O. & Schmölcke, O. (eds.). Hunting in northern Europe until 1500 AD.
Schriften des archäologischen Landesmuseums, Ergänzungs-reihe 7. Neumünster.
Indrelid, S., 2014. Oppdagelser på Hardangervidda. Kvinn- herad.
Indrelid, S., 2015. Medieval reindeer trapping at the Hardangervidda mountain plateau. Indrelid, S., Hjelle, K. & Stene, K. (eds.). Exploitation of outfied resources. Bergen.
Indrelid, S., Hufthammer, A. K., & Røed, K., 2007.
Fangstanlegget på Sumtangen, Hardangervidda – utforskningen gjennom 165 år. Viking, vol. LXX:
125–154.
Indrelid, S., & Hufthammer, A. K., 2011. Medieval mass trapping of reindeer at the Hardangervidda mountain plateau, South Norway. Quaternary Inter- national, vol. 238:44–54.
Indrelid, S., Hufthammer, A. K., & Nesje, A. 2015. Om reinsdyrfangst, rein og klima på Hardangervidda i eldre tid. Årbok for Universitetsmuseet i Bergen 2015.
Bergen.
Kjos-Hanssen, O., 1973. Reindeer Antlers and What They Can Tell Us about the Reindeer Population.
Norwegian Archaeological Review, vol. 6, no. 2:74– 78.
Nicolaysen, N., 1861. Reiseberetning, indsendt til det akademiske Kollegium. Foreningen til Norske For- tidsmindesmerkers Bevaring: Aarsberetning for 1860.
Christiania.
Røed, K. H. & Hansen, G., 2015. DNA from ancient reindeer antler as marker for transport routes and movement of craftspeople, raw material and prod- ucts in medieval Scandinavia. Indrelid, S., Hjelle, K. & Stene, K. (eds.). Exploitation of outfied resources.
Bergen.
Røed, K. H., Flagstad, Ø, Bjørnstad, G. & Huftham- mer, A. K., 2011. Elucidating the ancestry of do- mestic reindeer from the ancient DNA approaches.
Quaternary International, vol. 238:83– 88.
Skogland, T., 1993. Villreinens bruk av Hardangervidda.
NINA Oppdragsmelding 245. Norsk Institutt for Naturforskning. Trondheim.
Skogland, T. & Jordhøy, P., 1988. Konsekvensvurderingfor villrein ved omlegging av Bergensbanen på strekningen Tunga-Låghellervatn, Ulvik kommune, Hordaland fylke.
DN rapport 2/1988. Reguleringsundersøkelsene, Direktoratet for Naturforvaltning.
Takken-Beijersbergen, L. M., 2017. Heaps of fascinat- ing fragments: Reconstructing a medieval rein- deer population based on bone middens from the Hardangervidda high mountain plateau, Norway.
Acta Zoologica, 98:340–361.
White, T. E., 1953. A method of calculating the dietary percentage of various food animals utilized by abo- riginal peoples. American Antiquity, 38:266–278.
Svein Indrelid Kalfarveien 74A NO-5022 Bergen, Norge svein.indrelid@uib.no
Fornvännen 115 (2020)
